Authority: High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur

Order Date: 29/09/2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioner: Shirin Akhtar, daughter of Shri Anwar Khan, aged about 25, resident of Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
  • Respondents: (1) State of Chhattisgarh (Secretary, Dept. of Health & Family Welfare), (2) Directorate of Medical Education, (3) Directorate of AYUSH, (4) New Horizon Dental College and Research Institute, Bilaspur (through its Dean).
  • Petition seeks writ of mandamus under Article 226 for re‑checking/re‑evaluation of answer books in four BDS Final Year theory subjects – Public Health Dentistry (Community Dentistry), Periodontology, Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, and Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics – and issuance of a revised marksheet for the March‑April 2026 examination.
  • Academic record:
  • BDS 1st Year (Aug 2023): 389/600 (Passed)
  • BDS 2nd Year (Feb 2024): 552/800 (Passed)
  • BDS 3rd Year (Mar 2025): 432/600 (Passed) – theory scores 42/70 (General Medicine), 40/70 (General Surgery), 39/70 (Oral Pathology).
  • Final Year Examination (Mar‑Apr 2026) – aggregate 1002/1600, exceeding qualifying threshold, but declared “Failed” because theory marks in the four subjects were below the 50‑mark pass requirement.
  • Tabulated theory marks awarded: Public Health Dentistry 23/70, Periodontology 17.5/70, Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery 19/70, Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics 22.5/70. Oral/viva marks were 16‑18/20 in each subject, and practical marks exceeded 70/100.
  • Retotalling exercise (Notification No. 2152/Pt.DDUU/Conf./Result/2026 dated 15.07.2026) showed “Result No Change” – no alteration of marks for any candidate.
  • Certified copies of answer books revealed digital on‑screen evaluation with blank “1st VALUER” and “2st VALUER” tables, no marginal marks, and question‑wise scores as per the digital portal (e.g., Long Question 1: 7.5/10 in Public Health Dentistry, 2/10 in Periodontology, 4/10 in Oral‑Maxillofacial Surgery, 5.5/10 in Conservative Dentistry). Several short‑note questions received zero marks despite full answers.
  • Petitioner’s counsel argued that the evaluation showed manifest non‑application of mind, arbitrary low scores, and absence of any evaluative rubric or model answer key.
  • Respondent No. 4 (the university) contended that re‑evaluation is statutorily limited to two papers per session, that retotalling had been completed, and that the digital OSM system is a valid evaluation method. It cited Supreme Court judgments (Dr NTR University of Health Sciences 2022, Ran Vijay Singh 2018) to argue no right to re‑evaluation absent a specific provision.
  • The Court examined precedents (High Court of Tripura v Tirtha Sarathi Mukherjee (2019), Aish Mohammad v State of Haryana (2023)) stating that even without a statutory provision, courts may intervene where a candidate’s correct answer receives no marks and a grave injustice would result.

Final Outcome

  • The writ petition is Allowed.
  • Respondent No. 4 is directed to constitute an independent expert committee, comprising subject experts not connected with Respondent Nos. 4 or 5, to re‑evaluate the petitioner’s answer books in the four specified subjects within one month of receipt of certified copies of the order.
  • Upon completion of the re‑evaluation, Respondent No. 4 must issue a revised marksheet for the BDS Final Year Examination (March 2026) within a further two months.
  • No order as to costs.

Topics: Examination Evaluation, Higher Education, Judicial Remedy